PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Jin-Joo Yoo
, Man-Yong Kim, Joon-Ho Yoon
, Man-Yong Kim, Joon-Ho Yoon
Abstract
Several types of attachments have been used for implant supported and/or retained overdentures. Locator is one of the stud type attachments and it has been generally used. However, the colored matrix is resilient and vulnerable to wear, so frequent post-insertion maintenance is needed. To solve this problem, it is necessary to introduce innovative attachment system. Overdentures using Air Gap attachment (AGA) has improved masticatory function and facial esthetics. AGA is made of metal, so it could be more resistant to wear or friction than the other resilient attachments. Nevertheless, AGA plays a role in stress breakers because it allows movement during denture movement with predetermined gap. In addition, both pre-existing implants and natural teeth were successfully used for connection of AGA. AGA could replace other unsplinted type of attachments. Overdentures using AGA could provide satisfactory result in terms of function, esthetics and retention. However, long term follow up is needed.
Figures and Tables
Fig. 1
AGA system. (A) Components of AGA system, (B) Assembly of AGA components, (C) Schematic diagram of lap procedure of AGA. Dotted arrow indicates the-space between AGA and denture base. a: housing; b: transfer abutment; c: AGA holder; d: lab analogue holder; e: transfer abutment screw; f: AGA keeper; g: lab analogue.
Fig. 2
Connection of AGA matrix. (A) AGA housing is connected to the intaglio surface of denture, (B) Tightening of AGA holder. The AGA holder is connected to the housing attached to the resin base using a 1.2 mm hex driver. When replacement of the matrix is required, only the corresponding component can be easily replaced using a driver. (C) Assembled AGA matrix.
Fig. 3
Case 1. (A) Pre-operative panoramic radiograph, (B) Post-operative panoramic radiograph, (C) Definitive impression, (D) Boxing, (E) Definitive model, (F) Metal framework try-in, (G) Delivery (intraoral), (H) Delivery (extraoral).
Fig. 4
Case 2. (A) Pre-operative panoramic radiograph, (B) Frontal view, (C) Right buccal view, (D) Left buccal view, (E) Mandibular occlusal view, (F) Intaglio surface of definitive prosthesis.
Fig. 5
Case 3. (A) Pre-operative periapical radiograph, (B) Periapical radiograph after endodontic treatment, (C) Post-operative periapical radiograph, (D) Left buccal view after the engagement of AGA, (E) Frontal view after the placement of repaired prosthesis, (F) Left buccal view after the placement of repaired prosthesis, (G) Maxillary occlusal view after the placement of repaired prosthesis, (H) Intaglio surface of repaired prosthesis.
References
1. Budtz-Jörgensen E. Restoration of the partially edentulous mouth--a comparison of overdentures, removable partial dentures, fixed partial dentures and implant treatment. J Dent. 1996; 24:237–244.
2. Chee W, Jivraj S. Treatment planning of the edentulous mandible. Br Dent J. 2006; 201:337–347.
3. van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003; 14:720–726.
4. Chaimattayompol N, Arbree NS. Assessing the space limitation inside a complete denture for implant attachments. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:82–85.
5. Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kokat AM, Akca K, Eckert SE. Systematic review of prosthetic maintenance requirements for implant-supported overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25:163–180.
6. Cune M, Burgers M, van Kampen F, de Putter C, van der Bilt A. Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23:310–317.
7. Krennmair G, Weinländer M, Krainhöfner M, Piehslinger E. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or telescopic crown attachments: a 3-year prospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19:164–170.
8. Bilhan H, Geckili O, Sulun T, Bilgin T. A quality-of-life comparison between self-aligning and ball attachment systems for 2-implantretained mandibular overdentures. J Oral Implantol. 2011; 37:167–173.
9. Engelhardt F, Zeman F, Behr M, Hahmel S. Prosthetic complications and maintenance requirements in locator-attached implantsupported overdentures: A retrospective study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2016; 24:31–35.
10. Türk PE, Geckili O, Türk Y, Günay V, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of the retentive properties of ball and locator attachments for implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:1106–1113.
11. Rutkunas V, Mizutani H, Takahashi H. Influence of attachment wear on retention of mandibular overdenture. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34:41–51.
12. Grossmann Y, Nissan J, Levin L. Clinical effectiveness of implantsupported removable partial dentures: a review of the literature and retrospective case evaluation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67:1941–1946.
13. Osman RB, Payne AG, Ma S. Prosthodontic maintenance of maxillary implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont. 2012; 25:381–391.
XML Download